Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Support JDK 16 records in Java sources #9551
Support JDK 16 records in Java sources #9551
Changes from 3 commits
f7ae7af
320102e
9c8db16
4ed923e
f943169
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Jump to
There are no files selected for viewing
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Is
equalsStructure
the right way to check that the method signatures match?There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
This is tricky.. The parser-only implementation breaks here:
Using it from Scala:
Maybe it's good enough for a first implementation. But to do it right we have to compare the parameter types symbolically, which is a little tricky: it needs to be done early enough, so that type checking a
new R()
expression finds the constructor, but late enough so that symbolic information is available...See here for an example:
scala/src/compiler/scala/tools/nsc/typechecker/Namers.scala
Lines 1215 to 1229 in d974e99
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Right. This is exactly what I was worried about. Thank you for the pointer to similar code.
I'm a little concerned that the perfect solution won't be possible, but I'll try. If it isn't, I think we should lean towards assuming the constructor is different. It would be undesirable to assume the constructor is the same in a case like the following:
Unlike the case where we incorrectly mark
String
andjava.lang.String
as different, incorrectly assumingString
andsome.other.fully.qualified.String
are the same isn't fixable from the Java source without renamingsome.other.fully.qualified.String
(something which might not even be possible if it comes from another package).